[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

Would someone be so kind as to post all the scripture that even remotely supports a stationary earth?

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

​

Beyond the Earth being still the bible also clearly states that the Sun does indeed move.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Plus theres 70 odd instances of the Sun being described as moving.
Plus theres never any mention of the Earth moving.

​

 

[lordkalvan]

Plus theres 70 odd instances of the Sun being described as moving.
Plus theres never any mention of the Earth moving.

​

Wow, that convinces me. The Bible also says you can direct the colour of lambs' and kids' coats by putting peeled branches in front of the mating parents. What should I make of that?

 

[Strangelove]

Wow, that convinces me. The Bible also says you can direct the colour of lambs' and kids' coats by putting peeled branches in front of the mating parents. What should I make of that?

Make of it what you want. I'm just stating facts.

Whats with the excessively aggressive attitude?

Not very Christian.

 

[Strangelove]

From BiblicalScholarship.net

The simple subsistence farmer with God on his side and a strong ox to plow his fields is far better off than an educationally deceived, pleasure-loving American who sees the sun rise and says that it only appears to do so. Even professed Christians walk around with this heliocentric deception-- in spite of scriptures such as Isaiah 38:8 that clearly teach that the sun moves. It is the earth that stands still. To most of us, this sounds so far out--but why?

Our own eyes tell us that the sun rises and sets. We even say, "the sun is rising," "the sun is setting". Why does it sound so far out when someone says the sun actually has a circuit? It is because a spinning earth hurling through "space" (actually the firmament) like a ball shot out of a canon has been pounded into our heads from our youth. We succumbed to the teaching assault. We did not know any better.

I believed it until someone showed me what the scriptures have to say about it--and then in a moment of time I was free from that deception. Are you like that? Where all you need is the scripture to quickly dismantle any lie that you have believed? whether that lie came from Mother, Father, teacher, textbook, dictionary, or preacher? Sun worship is not dead, it has just taken on more sophisticated forms. I've seen poetry by one of the early heliocentrists actually magnifying the sun (I read it in "Geocentricity" by Dr. Gerardus Bouw--Dr. Bouw is a former atheist with a Phd in Astronomy). Baal is not dead. He has a new generation of ignorant worshippers. Even the so-called "Christian" textbook publishers magnify heliocentrists like Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler but practically ignore Tycho Brahe--the Noble Dane and the "Prince of Astronomers"--his beliefs, his findings. Tycho Brahe created the greatest naked eye astronomical instrumentation known to mankind. He took astronomy to a whole new level. This fact is undisputed. He knew about Copernicus' proclamations and rejected them on both scriptural and scientific grounds (for the record, the Tychonic model is not the same as the Ptolemaic system). King James delighted in the knowledge he learned in Tycho Brahe's laboratory.

Unsurprisingly, heliocentrist experiments to prove the motion of the earth have FAILED. These experiments have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.
...But a disciple does not need all this proof. A disciple ONLY needs the scriptures to prove to him what is true. One day I was in an audience when Dr. Bouw pointed out specific scriptures concerning the motion of the sun. That was ALL I needed to hear to change my mind. God showed me all the rest of these facts later on. Many, many things have worked out like that in my life. Are you like that? Where if the scriptures say it, you will believe it even if the world thinks you are some kind of fool? The earth is NOT hurling through "space" reeling to and fro like some drunken man. We've been deceived, don't know what the ecliptic is, cannot properly explain the seasons, and cannot tell the tropic of capricorn from the tropic of cancer because we don't know what the sun is doing...But in places where real astronomy is necessary--like in aeronautics--the geocentric model is still used.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Strangelove]

The Bible definately indicates a moving Sun relative to Earth::::

Genesis 15:12 And when the sun was GOING DOWN...

15:17 ...the sun WENT DOWN...

19:23 The sun was RISEN UPON THE EARTH...

28:11 ...the sun was SET...

32:31 ...the sun ROSE upon him

Exodus 22:3 If the sun be RISEN upon him... 22:26 ...the sun goeth DOWN:

Leviticus 22:7 And when the sun is DOWN...

Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the RISING of the sun

Deuteronomy 11:30 ...by the way where the sun goeth DOWN 23:11 ...when the sun is DOWN...

24:13 ...when the sun GOETH DOWN...

24:15 At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go DOWN upon it...

Joshua 8:29 ...as soon as the sun was DOWN... 10:13 And the sun STOOD STILL, and the moon stayed...So the sun STOOD STILL in the midst of heaven, and HASTED NOT TO GO DOWN about a whole day.

Judges 5:31 ...but let them that love him be as the sun when he GOETH FORTH in his might.

8:13 And Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle before the sun was UP,

9:33 And it shall be, that in the morning, as soon as the sun is UP..

14:18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun WENT DOWN...

19:14 ...the sun went down upon them

2 Samuel 2:24 ...the sun WENT DOWN...

3:35 ...till the sun be DOWN. 23:4 ...when the SUN RISETH...

2 Chronicles 18:34 the time of the sun GOING DOWN he died.

Psalms 50:1 ...RISING of the sun unto the GOING DOWN thereof.

104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his GOING DOWN.

104:22 The sun ARISETH...

113:3 From the RISING of the sun unto THE GOING DOWN of the same the LORD's name is to be praised.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ARISETH, and the sun GOETH DOWN, and HASTETH to his place where he AROSE.

Isaiah 38:8 ...So the sun RETURNED ten degrees,by which degrees it was GONE DOWN. 41:25 from the RISING of the sun

60:20 Thy sun shall no more GO DOWN; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself...

Jeremiah 15:9 her sun is GONE DOWN...

Daniel 6:14 ...he laboured till the GOING DOWN of the sun to deliver him.

Amos 8:9 I will cause the sun TO GO DOWN at noon...

Jonah 4:8 And it came to pass, when the sun did ARISE...

Micah 3:6 the sun shall GO DOWN over the prophets...

Nahum 3:17 ...when the sun ARISETH...

Habakkuk 3:11 The sun and moon STOOD STILL in their habitation...

Malachi 1:11 For from the RISING of the sun even unto the GOING DOWN of the same

4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness ARISE

Matthew 5:45 ...he maketh his sun to RISE...

Mark 1:32 And at even, when the sun did SET...

Luke 4:40 Now when the sun was SETTING...

Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun GO DOWN upon your wrath:

James 1:11 For the sun is no sooner RISEN...

 

[Strangelove]

Take a look at these time delay pictures of star trails::: From - http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo

The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (= celestial pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate (as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, as seen on photographs of star-trails (see below), it can only mean that the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would have changed considerably over the course of a single year. [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]So what we're looking at is what is real - WYSIWYG: stars orbiting the Earth once a sidereal day, i.e. the time it takes for a celestial object to rotate 360°. For the stars around the Earth this is: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds.[/FONT]

 

[Strangelove]

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS
FOR GEOCENTRICITY


By Malcolm Bowden



This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - Appendix 10.


(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT. There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising" etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun--

(a) are having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the understanding of the Bible passage and

(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low education of His hearers" and that we are more educated today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to ridicule Bible believers.

(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION. There is a major Biblical problem facing Christian heliocentrists. The sun is not referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previous created material. Both words are used of Man's creation. To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of events.

So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could take place scientifically we examine below.

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?


THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE

How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.


Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself.



Malcolm Bowden.
25.9.99

 

[lordkalvan]

Make of it what you want. I'm just stating facts.

Well, you're quoting biblical verse. The verse itself is a fact, but what it claims, states or asserts is not necessarily one, any more than something stated in The Lord of the Rings is fact just because it's written down.

Whats with the excessively aggressive attitude?

I have no idea what you mean. Just because someone asks questions you can't answer, this does not make them aggressive.

Not very Christian.

A complete non sequitur. Christians can't be aggressive?

 

[lordkalvan]

Take a look at these time delay pictures of star trails::: From - The "Rotating" Earth.. - Restricted Area: discretion is advised

The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (= celestial pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate (as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, as seen on photographs of star-trails (see below), it can only mean that the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would have changed considerably over the course of a single year. [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]So what we're looking at is what is real - WYSIWYG: stars orbiting the Earth once a sidereal day, i.e. the time it takes for a celestial object to rotate 360°. For the stars around the Earth this is: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds.[/FONT]

Specious nonsense. How far is to Polaris? What is the greatest diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun. What would be the height of the triangle that is formed by this configuration? What is the relationship between Earth's orbital baseline and this distance. How do you imagine that would determine our perception of whether Polaris is an apparently stationary point or not? Hint: the nearest star to Earth is around 4.3 light years away, the diameter of Earth's orbit is around 300 million kilometres; the distance to this star is thus (very) approximately 33,300 times further than the length of the baseline. Feel free to move rapidly from one end of a meter-long baseline to the other and see how much apparent motion there is when viewing an object 33 kilometres away. For your information, Polaris is about 100 times further away than Alpha Centauri.

The point applies equally (or even more so) to your argument about 'spiral' stellar paths.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, you're quoting biblical verse. The verse itself is a fact, but what it claims, states or asserts is not necessarily one, any more than something stated in The Lord of the Rings is fact just because it's written down.

Feel free to offer an alternative as to what those verse claim, state or assert.

Why is it whenever people try and and compare the Word of God to a fiction novel they ALWAYS choose Lord of the Rings?

I have no idea what you mean. Just because someone asks questions you can't answer, this does not make them aggressive.

No-one has asked me any questions that I have failed to answer.

A complete non sequitur. Christians can't be aggressive?

 

[lordkalvan]

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS
FOR GEOCENTRICITY

Well, (1) and (2) can be discounted as they are not even remotely 'scientific arguments', unless you regard myth, legend and folklore as evidential in and of themselves.

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not do what Bowland claims it did. The experiment was intended to detect 'aether flow'. The experiment suffered from numerous problems, not least being the limitations of late-19th Century equipment and measuring instruments, but still returned a measured velocity for Earth's orbit of 1/6th-1/4th of the expected value. So regardless of anything else, the experiment showed that Earth moved. Morley conducted further experiments with David Miller with better and more accurate equipment, and measured a value of about 1/3rd of the expected velocity. The experiment has been repeated many times since with increasingly accurate equipment: none of these experiments returns data that indicates a stationary Earth. Bowland is misleading you.

The report of the Michelson-gale is deceptive as well as it asserts that the earlier Michelson-Morley experiment 'detected no movement', which is simply wrong.

As to 'Airey's failure', it would be more persuasive if Bowland at least spelt his name correctly (George Biddell Airy). Airy's experiment indicated the absence of a 'universal ether'. I have no idea what Bowland means when he talks about having to 'very lightly' tilt a telescope 'to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of earth's "speed around the sun"'. Incidentally, Earth's orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 km/sec; the speed of light in air is around 300,000 km/sec and in water 200,000 km/sec. I would be interested to see the math showing the difference this would make in terms of the relationship between the distance Earth moves and the time it takes light to travel through the tube of a telescope filled with water and one filled with air.

And what do we see in the Sagnac experiment: yet another misrepresented 'proof' of a stationary Earth dating from at least 80 years ago. The conclusion that it supports a stationary Earth can safely be dismissed as, quite clearly, the experiment does not 'completely destroy' relativity theory; quite simply, the way the experiment is set up so that light rays run round a loop in opposite directions to all intents and purposes cancels out the so-called 'transverse' effects that are characteristic of relativistic phenomena.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

Quite incorrect. The Sagnac effect, for example, is used in current technology, such as inertial guidance systems. The Michelson-Morley experiment is commonly referenced in university physics' classes.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?

Theological disputes are always the most entertaining for outsiders to watch. heretics are so much more hateful than simple pagans.

I'm afraid I just choked in incredulity at the 'disintegrating Universe' argument. As Wolfgang Pauli once famously commented: 'Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong! (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)'

 

[Strangelove]

Specious nonsense. How far is to Polaris? What is the greatest diameter of Earth's orbit around the Sun. What would be the height of the triangle that is formed by this configuration? What is the relationship between Earth's orbital baseline and this distance. How do you imagine that would determine our perception of whether Polaris is an apparently stationary point or not? Hint: the nearest star to Earth is around 4.3 light years away, the diameter of Earth's orbit is around 300 million kilometres; the distance to this star is thus (very) approximately 33,300 times further than the length of the baseline. Feel free to move rapidly from one end of a meter-long baseline to the other and see how much apparent motion there is when viewing an object 33 kilometres away. For your information, Polaris is about 100 times further away than Alpha Centauri.

The point applies equally (or even more so) to your argument about 'spiral' stellar paths.

Anytime you wanna bring actual science to the table feel free.

Everything in the paragraph above is assumption based theoretical notions and figures.

 

[jasoncran]

the primary reason most creationist are for helio centrism is that the bible doesnt say how the earth moves and you could do proper exegesis and see that helio centrism doenst contradict the bible.

most people say that sun rise and sets even though they know the earth moves. ancient cultures such as the hebrew didnt have the ability to grasp that the earth moves. God didnt feel the need to tell them just that he was big enough to control the stars when he stopped the sun(rather the earth). The hebrew neednt understand the means which God did it just that he did do it.

i am a die hard creationist, but even i will admit that creation account in genesis doesnt explain how animals innards work , or a disease etc.

it leaves out a lot, we would spend eons trying to decypher what the lord meant if he did really tell us, and to him that aint gonna get you to heaven.

do we often ask the lord how he heals or do we believe that he did it. the same can be said about the verse in joshua that you say supports geocentrism.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, (1) and (2) can be discounted as they are not even remotely 'scientific arguments', unless you regard myth, legend and folklore as evidential in and of themselves.

Do you wanna join Coffeelover in the apologetics section?

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not do what Bowland claims it did. The experiment was intended to detect 'aether flow'.

Ok forget about Bowden's claims (we'll forgive your typo). How about Michelson's evaluation?::

Stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

The experiment suffered from numerous problems, not least being the limitations of late-19th Century equipment and measuring instruments, but still returned a measured velocity for Earth's orbit of 1/6th-1/4th of the expected value. So regardless of anything else, the experiment showed that Earth moved.

This is simply a bold faced lie. The experiment showed that Earth didnt move, as Michelson said (if you want I'll go and find his results table) and the only way you can nullify the results is to say that space is made up of nothing, which Einstein did with his theorys and occult math. Can you document please the problems with the equipment and measuring instruments?

Morley conducted further experiments with David Miller with better and more accurate equipment, and measured a value of about 1/3rd of the expected velocity. The experiment has been repeated many times since with increasingly accurate equipment: none of these experiments returns data that indicates a stationary Earth.

Have they indicated a moving Earth? Documentation please.

The report of the Michelson-gale is deceptive as well as it asserts that the earlier Michelson-Morley experiment 'detected no movement', which is simply wrong.

According to you and you alone.

As to 'Airey's failure', it would be more persuasive if Bowland at least spelt his name correctly (George Biddell Airy).

Lolz. We all make mistakes eh?

Airy's experiment indicated the absence of a 'universal ether'. I have no idea what Bowland means when he talks about having to 'very lightly' tilt a telescope 'to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of earth's "speed around the sun"'.

You dont know what it means probably cos you have no grasp of REAL science.

Incidentally, Earth's orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 km/sec; the speed of light in air is around 300,000 km/sec and in water 200,000 km/sec. I would be interested to see the math showing the difference this would make in terms of the relationship between the distance Earth moves and the time it takes light to travel through the tube of a telescope filled with water and one filled with air.

There is no math to show regarding that because this statement "Earth's orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 km/sec" is a theoretical assumption based premise.

And what do we see in the Sagnac experiment: yet another misrepresented 'proof' of a stationary Earth dating from at least 80 years ago. The conclusion that it supports a stationary Earth can safely be dismissed as, quite clearly, the experiment does not 'completely destroy' relativity theory; quite simply, the way the experiment is set up so that light rays run round a loop in opposite directions to all intents and purposes cancels out the so-called 'transverse' effects that are characteristic of relativistic phenomena.

Lolz. Your not even saying anything in that quote. Theres alot of words but no point.

Quite incorrect. The Sagnac effect, for example, is used in current technology, such as inertial guidance systems. The Michelson-Morley experiment is commonly referenced in university physics' classes.

Referenced maybe. Used in current technology...no doubt.....but never taught in universities.

Theological disputes are always the most entertaining for outsiders to watch. heretics are so much more hateful than simple pagans.

?

I'm afraid I just choked in incredulity at the 'disintegrating Universe' argument. As Wolfgang Pauli once famously commented: 'Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong! (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)'

Heeeeyyyy di you say Wolfgang Pauli?

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Wolfgang Pauli admitted: [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Can I get a touche?​

 

[lordkalvan]

Anytime you wanna bring actual science to the table feel free.

Everything in the paragraph above is assumption based theoretical notions and figures.

So go ahead and show us all those assumptions, just like you were able to do about observations of non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems. Oh, that's right, you weren't able to. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk. From a proponent of 'junk' science, lecturing others on 'actual science' is a bit rich.

 

[jasoncran]

interesting tidbit on kepler who worked under tehe.

Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler

 

[Strangelove]

the primary reason most creationist are for helio centrism is that the bible doesnt say how the earth moves and you could do proper exegesis and see that helio centrism doenst contradict the bible.

Huh? Not only does the Bible not say HOW the Earth moves...it also doesnt say that the Earth moves AT ALL.

A McDonalds at the centre of the Sun doesnt contradict the bible either but you dont rabidly believe it do you?

most people say that sun rise and sets even though they know the earth moves. ancient cultures such as the hebrew didnt have the ability to grasp that the earth moves. God didnt feel the need to tell them just that he was big enough to control the stars when he stopped the sun(rather the earth). The hebrew neednt understand the means which God did it just that he did do it.

Ok but you need to change the simple meaning of scripture to make that work.

i am a die hard creationist, but even i will admit that creation account in genesis doesnt explain how animals innards work , or a disease etc.

it leaves out a lot, we would spend eons trying to decypher what the lord meant if he did really tell us, and to him that aint gonna get you to heaven.

do we often ask the lord how he heals or do we believe that he did it. the same can be said about the verse in joshua that you say supports geocentrism.

Ok I agree. God isn't gonna explain the immence intricacies of every single scientific angle known to modern man. It just wouldn't have made sense to men of all ages in time. But were talking about the Earth spinning on its axis and hurtling around the Sun. It's a pretty huge deal and a very basic principle. But no mention.

 

[jasoncran]

why are we trees then when are planted in christ? that is called hebrew thought. and how did i change the verse to mean something that it didnt.

from the point of view of the Hebrew and us we can only see the sun move, but its US that are moving..

that is what i meant. Did that change what was said nope. we say that all the time.

i have solution. launch you in the atlas v rocket and to the third orbital plane , atttach video to say what is there. i wont be the sun , now would it.

agian, if you read the link that i just sent on kepler who was under your boy tehe, you might see something.

and ships navigated by his discoveries for yrs. so i doubt that he was wrong.


its called perspective. we on the earth cant see what is moving with out aids the hebrew then didnt need to know only that he observed the sun stop. so its easier that God let them write what they saw.

what if the means to the red sea splitting was explainable and reproducable and could be done on a small scale and was exactly as described but had a cause that was found naturally. would let that eliminate the truth in exodus? nope. and would it deny god his glory, nope

why not the same with heliocentric view.

the earth moving doesnt affect what the hebrew believed or wrote now does it.


why dont you believe in that acts 7 that a literal rock followed the jews in the wilderness.

some of the areas are peotry and agian that verse you used in joshua isnt poetry but it neither supports geocentrism.

do the moon rise to you or set,and in florida i have seen the moon up till noon with the sun, happens a lot here in winter.

 

[Strangelove]

interesting tidbit on kepler who worked under tehe.

Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler

Dunno what is says cos the link doesnt work but I'll spill these accusations about Keplar.

1) He was raised by witches and his mum went to trial for poisining and killing someone.
2) Keplar thought that the Sun was God the Father, and that the light emanating from the sun was the Logos or Christ. [Sunworshipper]
3) Keplar probably murdered Tychoe Brahe using mercury poisening. Then he took all Brahe's work and used it to promote Heliocentricity.

Man of God? Hmmm.

Faces tell alot about a man:::

Tychoe Brahe. True Biblical Christian. Lauded as the best Astronomer of his day.

Johannes Kepler. Sunworshipper. Raised by witches. Probable murderer. Ratface.

 

[jasoncran]

post a verse that says the earth stood still that isnt considered poetry by the hebrews.

if not then my case rests.and i just debunked what the verse in joshua says about that. so it will have to be in psalms or the others.